The law in your hands?
When countries introduce new laws, it can sometimes be controversial, which means there can be a lot of clashing opinions.
In recent years, many laws have been passed in countries around the world to try to protect the climate. Different countries have different laws. For example, the European Parliament has approved a new law banning the sale of petrol and diesel cars from 2035.
Lots of people agree that there should be tougher climate laws, so here at Topical Talk we’ve had a go at coming up with a few... but you might think they are controversial?
People can only take ten flights in their lifetime.
Everyone must become vegan (not eat or use any products that come from animals).
Everyone can only use five hours of electricity per day.
Cars can only be used for three days a week.
Over to you!
Pick one of the laws above and let us know if you think it should or shouldn’t be passed and why. For example, how might people react? What impact might it have on the climate? Or how easy would it be to follow or enforce?
Once you’ve done that, have a go at suggesting some ways to make these laws fairer or less controversial.
You could even suggest some different climate laws that you think might help to protect the planet.
I think that law four is a flawed idea, but the idea does have potential. I think a better version of this law is a day called "Hoy No Circula" in Mexico. This is a day in which on certain days of the week people can't drive their cars. The days are chosen by the last number on your license plate. This is a fair and fun way to keep air pollution down while making sure that citizens aren't majorly affected by it. So if I were to choose a law to be implemented I would choose law four. If law four was tampered to be more like Hoy No Circula I would be fully for this law.
I agree and another thing is that we can do it like they do in China as well. In Beijing and Shanghai they do this thing where they allow certain cars to go by the person's last digits of their license number. By people doing this it can make the air more cleaner due to how the air over there was getting very polluted.
This is an interesting proposal @cultured_television. To dive a little deeper, would richer people be able to circumvent this by having two cars with different license plate numbers, or people with larger families that are likely to have more cars?
I suppose requiring each person in a family to have the same final license plate number might be a good place to start, but I would be interested to hear what you think!
Law Two is a very interesting idea, in my eyes it is a very good, but it may seem like opposite to many others. My whole life, I was raised to see that meat isn't as essential as once believed. Although meat supplies us with vitality and can aid our body's healing, we don't need it. In fact there are many replacements to meat that do a similar job, such as: seeds, nuts, lentils, beans, the list could go on. Recently, the horrors of animal agriculture have become more recognised, highlighting its impact on our Earth. For instance, 83% of the worlds agricultural land is being used by animal agriculture, it is the lead cause of deforestation, the main driver of habitat loss and a massive danger to animals, threatening their extinction. And that's not all. I could write a whole book about animal agriculture, but that is not what I am here to do.
A University of Oxford stated that if fossil fuel use was ended immediately, the emissions produced by agricultural sector alone would make it impossibe to limit warming to 1.5 degrees celsius. That just shows us how bad it must be. Even the United Nation themselves said that the livestock sector was awful and bad for the environment in 2006. Four years later, they even suggested a shift to a vegan diet could save us.
Many people will stuggle with making this vast change, as meat and its products are dear to them, I don't think that preference should be more important than saving the world. If becoming vegan is what it takes, we should at least give it a try.
I think that law 2 is not logical. We can't oblige all people to be vegetarians.We need protein in our balanced food.
But other laws seem to be practical.we can reduce the hours of using electricity.but i want to comment on law 4.Instead of using cars some days .we can encourage people to walk or use public transport.
Can you get protein from foods other than meat?
First of all I agree with the point that we can't coerce all people to be vegan because meat is a very efficient way to get protein.However there is a lot of substitutes for meat like black beans,butter beans,almonds, buckwheat, jackfruit, soya beans which provide nearly as many essential amino acids as animal proteins do. Hemp seed is absolute winner when it comes to plant-based protein because it contains all 22 amino acids . This includes 9 aminos that our body cant produce on its own. Tofu, lentils, chickpeas also would do.
flowing_chocolate this is very interesting and it is great to see you have done your research! I like your idea of educating about other sources of protein, I certainly did not know how good these substitutes are! Great work!
I agree because... this seems to be a very good suggestion and a fantastic substitute for meat based protein. Having said that, food is an individual choice that one has to make. And that cannot be forced.
Yes, I feel like we can get proteins from foods other than meat.We can get proteins from eating bugs, this option is not the best but it's very rich in proteins and I feel like it's more effective because instead of us killing these bugs we can instead consume them for proteins.
Well done for using your knowledge from one of the resources in the Topical Talk Festival 2022!
The second law is very strict for us because we see that most people get an amoeba when they become vegetarians.
Can you explain what you mean, focused_clam?
I think I understand what focused_clam is trying to say. According to the little research I made, an experiment was conducted from November 2020 to May 2021 to see the microbiomes gotten from vegetables. Spinach and lettuce from the supermarkets in Valencia were used and the results were that Vermamoeba vermiformis (a specie of amoeba) which is capable of causing severe illness to humans were found in a fifth of the vegetable and also Acanthamoeba castellanii (another species of amoeba) which is capable of causing blindness was also found.
I agree because... we can also eat foods like eggs and chicken which also provide us with proteins and not only products from animals.
I disagree because... some people are allergic to bugs and besides that, bugs are not common in my country. so how would you cater for the people and some bugs spread diseases and are crop pests so now you want to encourage us to rear disease vectors.
Mam I have asked my teacher "How to get protein without the meat"
For that she said there are many veggies that are rich in protein and she said some examples like "Pulses,Soya beans,Nuts,Cereals and grains". These veggies gives us not only protein also fibers and iron to our body.
I agree becauseBut we have previously studied that meat is rich in protein sources, but there are no alternatives with the same amount of protein in meat. Like legumes, they contain protein, but lack it, and therefore we cannot do without meat or its derivatives. What's the solution??
💫 Raise animals well so they can reproduce quickly.
💫 Don't waste meat, because the human body doesn't need a lot of meat to get enough protein.
🧐 In your opinion, what are the appropriate solutions?
I agree because meat provides us with proteins , the proteins not only protect us from deficiency diseases but also repair worn out body tissues. Proteins build the body hence promoting growth.
Yes, you can get protein from food sources of animal and vegetable protein: meat, dairy products, fish and eggs, as well as grains, legumes and nuts. Vegetarians can get enough of the necessary amino acids by eating vegetable proteins. But it is not logical that we dispense with meat. We must look to all segments of society. For example, children cannot prevent them from their favorite things. Some people prefer meat. If we apply this law, there will be many objections, and they will migrate to other cities that do not apply this law in order to enjoy their lives.
Algae contains many proteins, which can be eaten for protein
Of course we can .Protein is found lentil,mashrom,beans,soya,nuts and many foods.But i still insist that we don't have to stop eating meat,but we can reduce it.
we can get protein from plants like beans other than animal source.. but I think people may can decrease using animal source but not changing completly to be vegetarians beacause animal meat and fish are delecious and also it is asource of other useful viatamins minerals and omega 3.
I'm not sure about this because some plants may give you protein but will it be enough to survive and be healthy?
I can get protein food other than meat, which is pellet, which some like to call it the ground protein because it contains a large percentage of protein, starchy materials, fats and mineral salts such as phosphorus, potassium, sodium and calcium and contains vitamin A. B 1. B2. All of its components made its formula close to the composition of meat. Its benefit is the same as the benefit of meat.
Yes we can /
Legumes such as: lentils, chickpeas, beans, beans, rice, vegetables, nuts, and others.
Can you give examples of the benefits of eating these foods rather than consuming meat? Is there any research that you can find to back this up?
First and foremost, I agree with skillful_mood that we cannot be forced to rely solely on plants, but we also do not require meat; humans have cereal and grains as a source of protein, for example, 100g of tofu equals 8g of protein, or 30g of peanuts equals 8g of protein. Although cereals and grains are another source of protein for humans, some people are allergic to them and hence cannot consume them.
Yes,we can get protein from other foods like diary products,eggs e.t.c.
Yes, we can get protein from foods other then meat. We can get protein from soy beans, dairy , seeds and cereals and grains. Cereals and Grains are better than meat because it consists of carbohydrates and B-vitamins
which can help make the body cells function properly and provide the body with glucose which is converted to energy used to support bodily functions and physical activity, whiles Soyabeans consists of fat and carbohydrates which may reduce the range of health problems ,as well as improving bone health. Dairy consist of vitamin D, Calcium and Phosphorus which helps in the building of bones and can help lower blood pressure.
I completely agreed with you that we can get protein.fat and vitamin from different sources of plants.
But we can't force people to stop eating animal or animals products.
But the government could establish a whole department only concern with spreading the culture of being more health in having the needed food from plants.
This department could start several awareness campaigns to encourage people to eat plants products.
The department could use social media platforms als to to spread this culture.
This department could prepare suggested options of new kinds of plants products to urge people to have it as an alternative of animals products .
Yes you can for example beans most a animal products nutritions can be also got from plants.
Eggs, nuts, cheese and some fish can also give you good protein instead of eating meat we could result to eating more things like these although why are people vegan? to stop hurting animals? or is it just because they don't want to hurt animals? well i think if we don't eat some animals they might end up killing us all now i know this is quite a statement but the animals are eating our trees and ruining our ozone layer so if you really think about it then maybe its a good thing were eating animals.
Yes you can get proteins from other foods eg chicken turkey duck emu goose, bushbirds, fish, prawns ,crab, lobster, mussels ,oysters, scallops ,clams eggs, milk ,yoghurt, cheese and so many more.
Yes, we can get proteins not only from animal meat, but also from what animals produce, such as milk and eggs
Yes, we can get proteins from other foods other than meat for example meat from some animals are not safe for human health, like pork when it is half cooked leads to tape worm infestation hence causing ulcers and reducing one's life span. In addition to this we can also get proteins from other sources like fish, eggs, milk and legumes. some examples of legumes are ground nuts, peas, beans and many others .So for this case we cannot depend on meat only as a source of proteins.
Hey skillful mood, using public transport is still using cars .In my own view, I really think law 4 will help because when there are no cars we have to walk. Walking to school or to work or any is really good for the body. walking in general helps in weight loss and cardiovascular fitness. Besides we are not totally banned from using cars. It will go a long way in reducing carbon emissions.
I'm not sure about this because... Walking to the place of work or school will take more effort and time from you. I suggest that we implement that for a day or two at least, but why not put a law in the use of public cars more than the cars they own, so that the proportion of smoke that comes out of public cars will be less than to use all He has his own car
I disagree because there are people who go to school and workplaces that are long distances and if there are no cars which helps people to get to long distances over short periods of time, they will have to trek and they will arrive late because the distance was long and if this continues regularly it will affect
their record and if perhaps it was a student, he or she will arrive late and also not concentrate in class because he or she is already tired and famished because of trekking and this could affect his or her academic performance and if it were a person who was working, he or she won't work efficiently because of the long distance and also won't offer maximum customer satisfaction. So, I think the main solution is to change what we use to power our means of transportation such as solar power, wind and electricity which give little or no carbon emissions.
I support you because if law 4 is introduced, people can still use bicycles which is also very good for our health. Besides that bicycles also don't pollute the air hence preventing climate change.
I agree because when carbon emissions are reduced, the climate will be conserved. It will also encourage the use of electric cars like cable cars causing development in a country.
I think that the Ugandan government should also improve on other means of transport like water and air transport to encourage the use of law 4.
I also think that law 4 has some negative impact most especially drivers who use automobiles to earn a living.
It will also led to the decline of some industries like fuel, steel, rubber and paint industries since cars spur their growth.
Hi @skillful_mood, I agree, it is hard to convince the whole world to become vegetarians! but we can get protein from loads of other foods, for example: chickpeas, nuts, lentils and loads more!
Yes we should encourage people to walk, do you have any ideas on how we could get everyone motivated to walk or use public transport?
I agree because... protein is really important to the body. And also law 4 is a bit harsh because we attend school for 5 days a week .
Some good points made. Would there be any consequences of reducing the number of cars? Also, what do you think could be done to improve public transport to better enable this?
We can improve public transport by giving public transport priority at traffic signals. Reducing time spent at traffic signals makes customers happy and reduces costs. Increase circulation around doors for public transport , this increases the amount of time it takes people to board or alight the vehicles and can prevent people from crowding around the doors.
I agree to everything you say, but what about those who are unable to walk? Because waiting may lead to the loss of this person's life.
I agree because protein is a part of everyone's diet. We would not be able to grow correctly if we don't get enough protein in our diets.
I agree with you in the first point because vegetarians are offered to alot of diseases because they don't eat meat.but l don't agree with you in the second point, people need electricity all the days as we live in technology age ,alot of worker earn money by working on line.Five hours electricity per a day is impossible to be applied.
Finally I support walking every day to the near places, because walking is healthy.
You raise a valid point about the second law not being practical for everyone to follow a vegetarian diet, as it is not possible for everyone to obtain the necessary nutrients they need solely from plant-based sources. A balanced diet is crucial for overall health and well-being, and it is essential to consume an appropriate amount of protein as part of that balanced diet.
Regarding the other laws, reducing electricity usage and encouraging people to use public transport or walk instead of driving are practical ways to reduce energy consumption and decrease carbon emissions. These actions can have a positive impact on the environment and help mitigate climate change.
It's important to note that while some laws or suggestions may not be feasible or practical for everyone, there are often alternative ways to achieve the same goals. For example, reducing meat consumption rather than eliminating it entirely or carpooling instead of walking or taking public transport. It's essential to find a balance between individual needs and the broader societal and environmental impacts of our actions.
I agree because... I agree that law 2 is unlogical and there is not enough proteins and carbohydrates and especially iron for young girls
My suggestion is to don't have law like this because in case of emergency situation the elders can't travel in the time.For international sports player have to go for a competition conducted in the foreign country he can't go for more than ten times so it's also a disadvantage for that country. A group of scientists have to go for another country for a discussion about the research they carry out if the scientist have only a limited time to travel in flight according to the law .It was a economically decrease for that country so this law can't be accepted
You've given some good examples for why this might not be practical. Could some people have exemption?
I think that the third law is better not to exist, because hospitals, operating rooms, and factories need electricity greatly, and there are many operations that take more than five hours, for example, Edison's mother, who was sick and in dire need of an operation. When the doctor was performing the operation, he was in dire need of light, and Edison's mother died. Because of this problem, I agree to this law if it is established, with the exception of hospitals, factories and emergency places
Yes, if this law is applied, it will greatly affect our lives. As there are a lot of people who travel for emergencies such as treatment and work.
You are right because if we have a limited time to travel in flight,we shall not be able to access everything we need. Like in my country, most of the goods are from other countries so if this law is introduced, we shall not get all our needs.
I agree because some people conduct businesses abroad hence reducing their income. And if a person is sick to the point of death ,he/ she as completed the time to travel in a fight will he / she be left to die ,for this reason this Law will not be right. And some countries grow flowers, carryout fish and have a low market for their produce in their home country, they use air transport export them since they are perishable and air transport is the quickest type of transport, if this law was implemented , some countries would have losses .
I will be speaking about law, if you ask me I really feel everyone is the world shouldn't become vegans, why.... Well because as we speak we're already endangering some animal all in the name of feeding and that's wrong, if we switch to being vegan a good population of the earth would endanger some plants too, I get the perspective of where this law is coming from but I personally think that we need balance first.
Can you provide some evidence of veganism endangering pants? Animals that are eaten are not endangered as they are mostly farmed. This would be the case for plants too, they would be farmed.
Some evidence of veganism endangering plants is loss of important plants and animals genetic materials, increase pressure on land and water resources and worsen problems with agricultural crops residues.
I agree with you on everything Your words are correct, but it can become vegetarian and we act wisely. Perhaps animals do not exist in homes (extinct from homes), or they may be on another farm, and there is certainly vegetarian food suitable for animals. Vegetarian food is good for humans. What if we eat it? We will get used to vegetarian food Maybe 70% of what you said is correct .
I disagree with tenacious drum's thought of some plants being endangered, because as we eat the plants we replant them with immediate effect.
Very funny but you do have a point if we only eat plants we keep on farming too much that the soil will produce less and if we keep on using manure on the soil it will cause pollution because cows that produce manure cause pollution. Also if you use fertilizer you spend money because fertilizer is expensive in my country.
Hey tenacious drum,
I see where you're getting at with the endangering plants, but I have to disagree. Why? I disagree because although meat does have proteins that we do need they can't support us forever. Most plants, fruits ect. have enough vitamins and stuff to support our living. Also eating meat produces more waste which can effect the environment. Also most meat sold in stores is not real meat, the thing that animal slaughterers kill sick animals. Even if not sick most stores keep old meat that can cause many health issues like E. Coli. They sell it for cheap as well which can catch the attention of buyers who doesn't want to spend much. So although you have a point I disagree with you sadly.
I disagree because when we focus on one sector than the other we tend to unbalance nature. When it comes to plants so may factors are to be put in place before making this type of decision. For example climate change although animals can endure more than plants, plants are more subject to climate conditions because plants, it's nutrition and it's wellbeing can solely depend on climate. So I feel we need to balance the two both vegans and non vegans it will go a long way in not focusing on one sector and endangering the other. Also meat can help us to grow especially young people but we don't need to take much of it, You just need to add a little protein to balance your diet but you take not of the meat and know you're getting the meat from the right source so that you don't get human meat which is bad or an animal which has contacted a disease.
I think that the third law will not be compatible with everyone. For my part, I can now participate here through electricity because the Internet is related to the existence of electricity, and there are 7 other members of the family, so we need electricity to save food or to wash clothes and many other things. As for the first law, it is kind of good, but from my point of view, imagine that the world's population is approximately 8 billion, and each person will make 10 trips. The impact of this will be great on the environment, so I prefer 5 trips instead of 10, and so it will be better. I have a solution, we have discussed in the technology class that electricity can be generated through water, and according to my studies on it, it is very environmentally friendly, but it does not require a large amount of capital
You have made a good point around how electricity is important for you and your family to be able to be undertake your daily lives. The internet is also so important in connecting the world in this day and age!
In terms of the other law around flying, can you think of any reasons why person may need to take more than 5 flights in their lifetime? Would you have any exceptions to the rule?
A good reason why this law shouldn't be implemented is because of health care advantage that some countries have over others. If an individual who has used up his 10 permissions to fly needs immediate treatment and he or she is in a country that doesn't have good resources, what do we expect him to do? Should this individual die because of this law?
Another reason why this law shouldn't be implemented is due to effect it'll have on international trades between countries. If a person who gets perishable goods from another country and sells it to people in his own country uses up his 10 permissions to fly and he can't get his goods quickly, should he settle for water transportation which is slow and risks the spoilage of his goods?
So therefore, this law shouldn't be implemented, or else an exception is made.
A lot of people have jobs which would have to take them outside their state or country so yes there are people who would have to take more than five flights in their lifetime.
That's right ... Good job👏👏
II liked your way of performing You are 100% correct 👍🏻
I agree with you,I think the third law should not be Passed on. If you ask me why, in my country we did not even have the opportunity to use electricity for 5hours,and this is a very bad situation. It is causing alot to our society insecurity and unemployment.
Insecurity: many street has no street lights and it is affecting so many people. And it will attract robbery in our society.
Unemployment:it is a very crucial aspect most especially in my country,so many youth who are unemployed engage themselves inArmrobbery , prostitution, kidnapping and cybercrime all this are due to unemployment.
If there should be regular electricity supply many factories will be established and will be in need of workers. Low electricity supply will make them have a decrease in production,and a company that is low in production can not employ so many workers.
It will affect so many people in the society mostly traders that use electricity for frozen food to preserve it,and company that makes use of machine.
Decrease in electricity will affect in the medical aspect, because so many hospitals make use of machine.
My country lack so many equipment in the hospital due to low electricity supply. It will be good if the third law should not be Passed on.
I agree because... whenever there is unemployment people will not be able to easily meet their needs forcing them to do unacceptable behavior in the community like theft.
l also think that law three might not work in countries that experience winter due to a lot of coldness and room heaters use electricity to function.
I agree that the third law is not compatible with everyone because a lot of people may work with electricity because their job causes them to work online or just the ordinary person like a lot of us who rely on electricity everyday. For the first law I disagree because a lot of people depend on flights to meet with family that they may be far from or for their job. I know planes contribute to a lot of the world's population but maybe a compromise could be found in laws so regular people do not have a limit on flying.
Compromise is always hugely important in making decisions that affect lots of people. Can you think of any good compromises?
The third law: It should not be passed because electricity helps very important in human life, such as household uses such as lighting, heating, and operating household electrical appliances, but it has an impact on the climate because power plants burn raw materials such as coal and fuel, so gas is produced from burning that causes a rise in the earth’s temperature. And it causes pollution in the air that all living beings breathe, which endangers their health/ To make this law fair, electricity must be used from 6-15 hours per day so that people can fulfill their needs/ Perhaps this law that he proposed helps some, which is not to build factories near cities and reduce the burning of raw materials
What about in places like hospitals?
Continuous power outages pose a great danger to the lives of patients, resuscitation devices and x-ray machines stop, and departments suffer from power outages, knowing that the number of dialysis patients is very large, so it must be used 24 hours because it is important in the health field and saves human life
But some places can be excluded by the state that stipulates this law, such as hospitals, because of dialysis patients. Yes, this will affect the environment, but if people are constantly dialysis, then they will not be sick with this disease, so it helps reduce its impact on the environment.
I think law 3 cannot work in hospitals because they need electricity 24 hours.
In case of a serious emergency at night, patients cannot be left to die because of this law.
Electricity can also be used for security purpose since some patients are victims of kidnapping.
In my opinion, the law is just a simple law because it is applied in my city and I do not see any inconvenience. On the contrary, it is nice to remain without electricity and live an old life that our ancestors lived without development and bringing the family together. There are many roads in my city which have lights through the use of solar energy and solar cells. Therefore, in my opinion, all the laws are easy and simple, but we have not tried anything in this life. There are two sides to this law, a positive side and a negative side, and also a need or an invention, so it is possible to set this law to change the environment and invent things that are not harmful to the environment
I second trustful_hurricane in law three, Why? because electricity can't be used for only five hours for example at our home we use it for cooking, ironing clothes, watching series of movies and news, entertainment and that is not only used for five hours. Electricity is also used at our school, imagine we use more than five hours for learning and even typing of school daily documents, so implementing it as a rule or law won't be easy because the public at large too uses electricity for different purpose.
#I think that Law 4 "Cars only can be used for 3 days a week" can be passed because it's somewhat applicable in our life. We can reduce the air pollution and also save our natural resource.
#I feel that Law 2"Everyone must become vegan" is not possible because there are some people who consume meat for their health but it can be slowly reduced.Yes, ofcourse it's mentioned for a good cause but practically it's impossible.
That's an interesting point on cars, eager_atmosphere. Do you think this might cause difficulties for those people who live in areas without much public transport, or who need access to a car at all times (for example to attend work, hospital appointments, and so on)?
First of all THANKYOU and yes, ofcourse it will be difficult for those people without much public transport facility and for those who need access to car everytime. Cars are found only to make our lifestyle easy.
Suddenly implementing to reduce its use,surely it finds difficult.But by thinking of the future generation, it can be done.When something is being taken away,the alternative should be found. Instead of using petrol or diesel car , electric vehicle can be used .The electric vehicle can be used regularly as it won't pollute and for attending the hospital appointment , the appointment would have been informed earlier, the usage of car should be scheduled accordingly .If the government wants people to follow this law,the government should provide them with public transport facility who requires it .
Thank you for your thoughts. Relating to Law 4 - do you think there should be set days that cars can and cannot be used?